I'm going to try really hard not to be a smart alack on this post. I may get kicked out of my family for it, but I need to do it.
Last Thursday, I posted a rebuttal to the Sutherland Institute's math on vouchers. Paul Mero of Sutherland rebutted in the comments, and the Senate Site rebutted on their blog.
Mr. Mero states that they took out schools with tuition greater than $10,000. Therefore for the press release to be honest, it would need to state that the average tuition of private schools with tuition below $10,000 is $4520. I firmly believe the purpose behind the fuzzy math was to make the pro-education people like myself look like liars for putting up the $8000 figure.
Secondly, both rebuttals speak to affordability. Assuming that a parent puts their kid in an "average" school, and that family gets the full $3000, that still puts the parent's tab at $1520. And that doesn't account for transporting the children, uniforms for the children, nor any of the other costs associated with a change in schools.
To qualify for the $3000, a family of 4 must make $30,000 or less (according to the voter information pamphlet from the Lt Governor's office). 5% of their net income would go towards tuition.
And all of this is assuming that tuition doesn't see a jump for 2008-2009. Simple supply and demand would indicate that it could. However, I'll get to that in another post.
-Bob
3 comments:
Nice Job, Bob. I think you're down to the point where they can only tease you about not agreeing with them because of Jesus' love of private schools.
WWJGTS?
Both your posts were fine Bob. It was Cantrell who was the wise-ass. I 'm dumbfounded as to why Ric would push the Sutherland lie.
Keep up the good work.
Awww, I was hoping for some smart-alec-ness! Then you had to go be all logical and make sense. Now they'll have no choice but to find some new fuzzy-math or make up a poll showing how people should just give in and vote with the 72.59% of Utahns who want vouchers.
Post a Comment